- Thank you received: 0
Invariance of Light
21 years 3 months ago #6472
by Jan
Replied by Jan on topic Reply from Jan Vink
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[TVF]: No. One signal would be traveling upstream against an aether, and the other would be traveling downstream. Defining the delays as equal is equivalent to assuming that the speed of light is the same in both directions.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
What if we say that space is homogenous? Moreover, the SOL should be the same in all directions, otherwise we contradict that it is an universal constant.
[TVF]: No. One signal would be traveling upstream against an aether, and the other would be traveling downstream. Defining the delays as equal is equivalent to assuming that the speed of light is the same in both directions.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
What if we say that space is homogenous? Moreover, the SOL should be the same in all directions, otherwise we contradict that it is an universal constant.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
21 years 3 months ago #6237
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Jan[: What if we say that space is homogenous? Moreover, the SOL should be the same in all directions, otherwise we contradict that it is an universal constant.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
That is the speed-of-light postulate, the one that you complained about in your previous message. -|Tom|-
That is the speed-of-light postulate, the one that you complained about in your previous message. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 3 months ago #6066
by hal
Replied by hal on topic Reply from
Jan, this is frustrating, but only in SR context - other theories have no such limitations.
In SR, simply, the word "absolute" is striped of all meaning - there is no "absolute" speed, "absolute" time and so on - because of the first postulate. The only thing for sure is that c is allways c - because of the second postulate.
It is said, then, that SR is the most simple and "elegant" (whatever this means) among others, therefore the prefered one.
In SR, simply, the word "absolute" is striped of all meaning - there is no "absolute" speed, "absolute" time and so on - because of the first postulate. The only thing for sure is that c is allways c - because of the second postulate.
It is said, then, that SR is the most simple and "elegant" (whatever this means) among others, therefore the prefered one.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
21 years 3 months ago #6370
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[Jan]
Why did we accept the second postulate in the first place?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Because we couldn't detect an aether wind. Which implied no absolute frame of reference. The notion of a prefered - but still not absolute - frame of reference is fairly new, IIRC. At the time SR seemed the only way out. Now it permeates so much of science that it is hard to get trained technical people to even consider thinking about alternatives. But hard is not the same as impossible. I hope.
There is a debate going on right now on sci.astro about whether or not a theory has to be testable in order to be scientific. Like most of these debates it has begun to wander off-topic, so I haven't been following it closely of late. But to me the answer is obvious.
Of course, you do have to say what you mean by "testable". Like Nixon and pornography, we may have trouble defining it but we know it when we see it.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[tvf]
One signal would be traveling upstream against an aether, and the other would be traveling downstream.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Right. But I thought the aether (in MM, alias the elysium or the gravitational potential field) was supposed to be locally entrained and therefore stationary relative to massive objects. This is why we don't detect an aether wind with an MMX. Which, now that I think about it, is the functional equivalent of a one-clock SOL experiment. (?)
No aether wind, no upstream/downstream effects. And my one-clock-two-detector rig is back in business.
??
Regards,
LB
[Jan]
Why did we accept the second postulate in the first place?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Because we couldn't detect an aether wind. Which implied no absolute frame of reference. The notion of a prefered - but still not absolute - frame of reference is fairly new, IIRC. At the time SR seemed the only way out. Now it permeates so much of science that it is hard to get trained technical people to even consider thinking about alternatives. But hard is not the same as impossible. I hope.
There is a debate going on right now on sci.astro about whether or not a theory has to be testable in order to be scientific. Like most of these debates it has begun to wander off-topic, so I haven't been following it closely of late. But to me the answer is obvious.
Of course, you do have to say what you mean by "testable". Like Nixon and pornography, we may have trouble defining it but we know it when we see it.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[tvf]
One signal would be traveling upstream against an aether, and the other would be traveling downstream.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Right. But I thought the aether (in MM, alias the elysium or the gravitational potential field) was supposed to be locally entrained and therefore stationary relative to massive objects. This is why we don't detect an aether wind with an MMX. Which, now that I think about it, is the functional equivalent of a one-clock SOL experiment. (?)
No aether wind, no upstream/downstream effects. And my one-clock-two-detector rig is back in business.
??
Regards,
LB
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
21 years 3 months ago #6371
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
It is said, then, that SR is the most simple and "elegant" (whatever this means) among others, therefore the prefered one.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Might this be an example where Occam's Razor fails?
Regards,
LB
It is said, then, that SR is the most simple and "elegant" (whatever this means) among others, therefore the prefered one.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Might this be an example where Occam's Razor fails?
Regards,
LB
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
21 years 3 months ago #6238
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[LB]: I thought the aether (in MM, alias the elysium or the gravitational potential field) was supposed to be locally entrained and therefore stationary relative to massive objects. This is why we don't detect an aether wind with an MMX. Which, now that I think about it, is the functional equivalent of a one-clock SOL experiment. (?)<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Right. But that is LR, which has no such postulare as SR about the invariance of c. We were speaking of how to test the speed of light without making an assumption (such as entrainment) that implies the answer. Such an experiment cannot be done using light signals or anything slower. It can be done in principle using gravity signals because they are FTL in forward time, which contradicts SR right from the start. -|Tom|-
Right. But that is LR, which has no such postulare as SR about the invariance of c. We were speaking of how to test the speed of light without making an assumption (such as entrainment) that implies the answer. Such an experiment cannot be done using light signals or anything slower. It can be done in principle using gravity signals because they are FTL in forward time, which contradicts SR right from the start. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.216 seconds